Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (1997)
United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (1997)
United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (1997)
OCT 3 1997
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 96-5142
(D.C. No. 91-CR-158)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
(continued...)
-3-
district court properly transferred the filing to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1631. See id. at 341. The second motion challenged the 924(c) use
conviction on the grounds that the government had failed to prove that he
actively employed a firearm, as required by Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct.
501, 509 (1995). We observed that Bailey established a new nonconstitutional
rule of substantive law, Coleman, 106 F.3d at 341 (quoting United States v.
Barnhardt, 93 F.3d 706, 709 (10th Cir. 1996)), not a new rule of constitutional
law, as required by 2255, Coleman, 106 F.3d at 341. We therefore concluded
that the second motion failed to make the prima facie showing required by
2255, id. at 341, and denied certification, id. at 342.
(...continued)
A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in
section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain
-(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
II. DISCUSSION
In this appeal, Coleman continues to argue that his conviction was based on
false testimony and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also
injects the argument made in his second 2255 motion, concerning the use of a
firearm under Bailey. We address each issue in turn, 2 reviewing the district
court's legal rulings de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error. See United
States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 338 (10th Cir. 1996).
A.
-5-
testimony from Willis would have provided additional support for the jury
verdict.
B.
omitted)) ([A] defendants mere presence argument will fail in situations where
the mere is lacking.). Here, Colemans activities on the day of the robbery go
well beyond mere presence in the bank. Moreover, Coleman does not allege any
errors in the jury instructions covering the elements of bank robbery.
Coleman also claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate
and impeach Williss testimony and for entering into a stipulation that Turner
need not be called as a witness at trial. As we have previously discussed, the lack
of truthful testimony from Willis did not prejudice Coleman. Similarly, the
absence of testimony from Turner could not harm Colemans case. Concerning
the allegation that counsel failed to deliver a plea offer, Coleman provided no
evidence that any such offer was made.
After reviewing the entire record, we note that counsel provided Coleman
with a professional defense and conclude that his performance was neither
deficient nor prejudicial to Coleman.
C.
As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue on appeal that was
not raised below. Walker v. Mathers (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.
1992). The rule, however, is not inflexible and the matter of what questions
may be taken up and resolved for the first time on appeal is one left primarily to
the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on the facts of individual
-7-
cases. United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528, 1532 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., 77 F.3d 1215, 1229 (10th Cir. 1996)
(further quotations omitted)).
We exercise our discretion to reach and dispose of Colemans challenge to
his firearm conviction under the Supreme Courts holding in Bailey that use, as
articulated in 924(c), means an active employment of a firearm. Bailey, 116
S. Ct. at 509. We agree with the government that this holding does not affect our
determination on direct appeal that Colemans struggle with the guard for
possession and control of the gun was a use sufficient for 924(c) purposes.
See Coleman, 9 F.3d at 1484.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Colemans motion to file supplemental briefs is
GRANTED.
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-8-